Some quotes from Whipping Girl about the topic
In the chapter The Ramifications of Artificializing Femininity:
Feminists' past privileging of femaleness over femininity has also enabled misogynistic acts that target men who have feminine traits to remain unnoticed and unarticulated. For example, when a gay man ridicules another gay man for being too "flamboyant" or "effeminate," he may be accused of harboring "internalized homophobia"-a nonsensical turn of phrase to describe someone who is openly gay and has no problems with masculine gay men. Isn't this form of antifeminine discrimination better described as misogyny? Similarly, straight women who regularly pair up with macho guys who treat them poorly, yet won't consider dating a "nice guy," might be described as harboring "internalized misogyny." Again, isn't this better described as a form of externalized misogyny directed at men who display qualities that are considered feminine?
Some feminists (particularly unilateral feminists) will no doubt have a negative knee-jerk reaction to my suggestion that we extend our understanding of misogyny to encompass effemimania-our societal obsession with critiquing and belittling feminine traits in males. However, as I have argued in past chapters, effemimania affects everybody, including women. Effemimania encourages those who are socialized male to mystify femininity and to dehumanize those who are considered feminine, and thus forms the foundation of virtually all male expressions of misogyny. Effemimania also ensures that any male's manhood or masculinity can be brought into question at any moment for even the slightest perceived expression of, or association with, femininity. I would argue that today, the biggest bottleneck in the movement toward gender equity is not so much women's lack of access to what has been traditionally considered the "masculine realm," but rather men's insistence on defining themselves in opposition to women (i.e., their unwillingness to venture into the "feminine realm").
In the chapter: Re-Thinking "Male Privilege"
The concept of “male
privilege” emerged out of the incorrect assumption that sexism functions as a
unilateral form of oppression. According to this model, men unilaterally
oppress women, and thus they reap all of the benefits, while women bear all of
the hardships. This, however, is a gross oversimplification of sexism for
numerous reasons. First, the concept of unilateral sexism denies other
important factors, such as racism, classism, ableism, etc., that contribute to
discrimination. After all, it’s difficult to make the case that a rich white woman
is more oppressed than a poor black man in our culture. Second, it ignores
oppositional sexism, which favors those with typical gender inclinations over
those with exceptional ones, regardless of sex.
[...]The concept of “male privilege” not only ignores oppositional sexism; it
assumes that women are the sole targets of traditional sexism. While those who
live full-time as women surely bear the brunt of traditional sexism, female- and
feminine-inclined male-bodied people are also clearly targeted by this form of
sexism, as is evident in our culture’s rampant effemimania.
[...]We must also stop pretending that there are essential differences between women and men. This begins with the acknowledgment that there are exceptions to every gender rule and stereotype, and this simply stated fact disproves all gender theories that purport that female and male are mutually exclusive categories. We must move away from pretending that women and men are "opposite" sexes, because when we buy into that myth it establishes a dangerous precedent. For if men are big, then women must be small; and if men are strong then women must be weak. And if being butch is to make yourself rock-solid, then being femme becomes allowing yourself to be malleable; and if being a man means taking control of your own situation, then being a woman becomes living up to other people's expectations. When we buy into the idea that female and male are "opposites," it becomes impossible for us to empower women without either ridiculing men or pulling the rug out from under ourselves.
In the chapter: Reconciling Intrinsic Inclinations with Social Constructs
The fact that we perceive two major categories of gender enables us to view
women and men as “opposites”—a premise that is founded on a series of
egregiously incorrect assumptions. First, in order for the two sexes to be
“opposites,” they must first be mutually exclusive.
[...]The very idea that there are “opposite” sexes unnecessarily polarizes
women and men; it isolates us from one another and exaggerates our
differences. It provides the framework for us to project other “opposite” pairs
onto female and male (and femininity and masculinity). Thus, we assume that
men are aggressive and women are passive; men are tough and women are
weak; men are practical and women are emotional; men are big and women are
small; and so on.
[...]Because the idea that
women and men are “opposite” sexes automatically creates assumptions and
stereotypes that are differently applied to each sex, I call this view of gender
oppositional sexism.
Not only does oppositional sexism form the framework that fosters the
entrenchment of traditional sexism (the idea that maleness and masculinity are
superior to femaleness and femininity), it marginalizes those of us who have
exceptional sexual and gender traits. It accomplishes this, in part, by
invalidating our natural gender inclinations and sex characteristics: A gay
man’s attraction to men is not seen to be as legitimate as that of a heterosexual
woman; a trans man’s male identity is not seen to be as valid as that of a
cissexual man; a male-bodied transgender person’s femininity is not seen to be
as authentic as a cisgender woman’s; and intersex bodies are not considered to
be as natural as non-intersex female and male bodies
[...]Second, we should beware of any theory that attempts to oversimplify
gender. It is common for articles or books about gender to begin by defining
gender in an exclusive way, such as whether a person is feminine or masculine
(i.e., gender expression/gender roles), whether they identify as female or male
(i.e., subconscious sex/gender identity), or whether they behave according to
the social norms associated with each sex. These assumptions severely limit
the terms of the debate. The truth is that any dialogue about gender must begin
with the acknowledgment that the word “gender” has scores of meanings, and
all of them must be seriously considered if we hope to have an honest and
fruitful discussion on the subject. Thus, theories that rely on either strictly
gender essentialist or social constructionist definitions of gender, or that
privilege certain gender inclinations over others, are destined to be inadequate
in explaining the vast diversity of gender and sexual traits that exist in the
world, and will inevitably make invisible certain sexual minorities.
It's clear to me that Serano herself finds oppositional sexism deeply harmful, crediting it as the root of pretty much every queerphobic bigotry since they all reinforce the idea of men and women being opposites since they all require the strict gender binary to exist in order to punish anyone who strays from it.
She argues there is far too much gender diversity both socially and sexually to accurately position men and women as opposites since such a simple argument is based off of ignoring any other intersections that affect gender and sex that would prove it false (like race, class, and even being intersex).
It's through her understanding that sexism, transphobia, intersexism, and misogyny are all based in traditional and oppositional sexism that she brings up how misogyny does in fact target men, something she called effemimania. She makes it clear this is separate from just homophobia by using an example of how gay masculine men aren't shamed nearly as much as feminine gay men, driving her point home about how it's the femininity of men being targeted not just their gayness, nor is it transphobia since cis men are targeted by it. She also notes that even women are capable of perpetuating effemimania when they are disgusted by feminine men but drawn to men with toxic masculinity. She describes effemimania as the way that men stray from the masculine norms demanded of them by oppositional and traditional sexism.
She also states how she believes effemimania should be included in feminism under the umbrella of misogyny especially by feminists who are seriously trying to liberate all genders. Since she sees femininity as the behavior being punished regardless of sex, gender, race, class, or sexuality there is no reason to only liberate trans women from that punishment and oppression.
Along with that, if you can be affected by effemimania or misogyny and can be affected by transphobia then it stands to reason that Serano also created the framework for how and why trans men do in fact experience both misogyny/effemimania and transphobia.
Actually reading Whipping Girl makes it very clear that Serano believes that any form of feminism that tries to paint men and women as opposites/opposing forces is using an immature framework that neglects to acknowledge the nuances of gender, sex, and oppression. It's clear she thinks that sort of approach to liberation ultimately harms all genders, but especially trans femmes since it's a framework puts trans femmes in a position of being weak since weakness is the opposite of power which an immature framework claims only men can have. And she doesn't think a disempowering feminist framework like that is capable of liberating trans women, let alone any other trans person or woman when it innately views them as weak and incapable.
Not only that but she also deeply critiques the men vs women framework even when it's used as a way to draw likes between oppressor and oppressed, again because of the way such a simple framework ignores other intersections of identity. When men can be affected by misogyny and women can perpetuate oppositional sexism then drawing a line between women/oppressed and men/oppressor becomes ignorant at best and accutely harmful at worst.
In a chapter called Trans Women Manifesto she even claims thats the framework paeudofeminists (radfems/terfs) use to target "males" who in a transphobe's eyes hold all power over females more specifically she says this about it:
After all, as a concept, feminism is much like the ideas of “democracy” or “Christianity.” Each has a major tenet at its core, yet there are a seemingly infinite number of ways in which those beliefs are practiced. And
just as some forms of democracy and Christianity are corrupt and hypocritical
while others are more just and righteous, we trans women must join allies of
all genders and sexualities to forge a new type of feminism, one that understands that the only way for us to achieve true gender equity is to abolish both oppositional sexism and traditional sexism.
[...]It is only when we move away from the idea that there are “opposite” sexes, and let go of the culturally derived values that are assigned to expressions of femininity and masculinity, that we may finally approach gender equity. By challenging both oppositional and traditional sexism simultaneously, we can make the world safe for those of us who are queer, those of us who are feminine, and those of us who are female, thus empowering people of all sexualities and genders.
She isn't saying that trans men are more oppressed than trans women, nor is she saying the opposite though in fact she thinks "trying to make the case here that MTF spectrum folks are “more
oppressed” than cissexual women, as playing the more oppressed-than-thou
card serves no purpose other than narcissism."
However, she does do a very good job of trying to acknowledge the nuances she was capable of when the book was written. Like OP said, after the book was released she did come out and say if she'd known it'd be considered a major trans work in the way she sees it is today she'd have taken more care than to focus on her own experiences as a relatively privileged, passing white trans woman.
But even still, it's clear that while she did certainly focus on her own experiences and perspectives, that she did consider how her theories worked for more than just her own gender and even said some things that even today are pretty controversial to acknowledge within feminist spaces.
This book is a gold mine and I really wish that I saw more talk about it being just being used as a gotcha that tmas say to tmes "go read whipping girl then get back to me" when tmes criticize the TME/TMA framework or being used by TMEs to argue against against the TME/TMA framework
As a two spirit I'm personally a big fan of how she discussed oppositional sexism and the gender binary, especially how she says the issue isn't necessarily the binary itself but rather the way it doesn't allow room for anything outside of it to exist and how it goes hand in hand with traditional sexism.
As someone who strongly hates the gender binary for doing exactly that, especially as it pertains to colonialism's violence against native ideas of gender and sexuality, I genuinely don't this site is fully appreciative of all the concept work Serano has laid out for feminists to build upon. Instead her work gets reduced down to just transmisogyny and who's affected by it which is also exactly what she said she didn't want to happen specifically because of how it reinforces oppositional sexism.
I'm not sure anyone on this site actually read the book at this point, ngl. Seems to me a bunch of y'all just keyword searched through it to make your own arguments which is insane. Just read the whole book.
